Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2070 (RAJ)

Sarbati Devi v. Murti Mandir Ramkunwarji

2008-09-03

A.K.PUROHIT, KAMAL NAYAN SHRIMAL, KULDEEP SHARMA, KUSHAL SINGH, NIRMAL KUMAR JAIN

body2008
Honble SINGH, C.—The matter under consideration before the Full Bench is a reference made by the Single Bench of Shri A.K. Purohit under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 vide his order dated 12.7.2006. The Honble Member has referred the following two questions for the opinion of the Full Bench. (1) Whether the provision of CPC with its amendments are strictly applicable to the suits, appeals, revision, references, review and proceedings under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act of 1955? (2) Whether the provision of CPC with its amendment are applicable to the appeals, revision, reference, review and proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and rule made thereunder. 2. The above reference has arisen from two revision petitions which had been filed in the Board under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The brief background of these petitions is that the non-petitioners had filed two appeals under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 in the Court of the Addl. Collector, Alwar against two orders of the Tehsildar. Ramgarh dated 14.7.1994 and 25.7.1994. The Addl. Collector, Alwar had allowed the appeals and set aside the above two orders of the Tehsildar vide judgment dated 20.6.1997. The judgment of the Addl. Collector, Alwar was challenged before the R.A.A., Alwar, in two appeals No. 9/98 and 10/98. The appeals had been dismissed by the R.A.A., Alwar vide judgment dated 27.3.1999. The present revision petitions Revision/LR/ 2981/99/Alwar and Revision/LR/2982/99/Alwar had been filed in the Board against the orders of the R.A.A., Alwar. 3. While initiating the arguments in the revision petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Purna Shankar Dashora had challenged the legality of acceptance of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC by the Addl. Collector, Alwar without providing any opportunity to the present petitioner to produce documents and evidence in rebuttal as required under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. He further submitted that the application of the non-petitioners under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was decided along with the judgment of appeals which is against the law. The learned counsel for the petitioners had further emphasized that the respondents are not aggrieved persons against the order of the Tehsildar as per provisions of Section 96 of CPC and as such the respondents had no locus standi to file the appeal before the Addl. The learned counsel for the petitioners had further emphasized that the respondents are not aggrieved persons against the order of the Tehsildar as per provisions of Section 96 of CPC and as such the respondents had no locus standi to file the appeal before the Addl. Collector, Alwar against the orders of the Tehsildar. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised other grounds also in support of his objection and emphasized that the provisions of the CPC are strictly applicable to the proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. 4. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners in his arguments had contended that the provisions of CPC are not applicable to proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and the documents produced by him before the Addl. Collector, Alwar should be treated as having been submitted under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and not under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners also contended that the appeal filed before the Addl. Collector, Alwar was under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and not under Section 96 of the CPC. Since the provisions of the CPC are not applicable to the proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, the question of requirement of filing an appeal only by an aggrieved person does not arise under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. 5. While examining the submissions made by the learned counsels in the case, the Honble Member has pointed out that in order to decide the revision petitions on merit, it is necessary for him to first decide the question with regard to the applicability of the CPC to the proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. Provisions have been made in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 for procedure to conduct the case and proceedings before the Board of Revenue as well as case and proceedings before the subordinate Revenue Courts under Section 261 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. Revenue Court Manual Part-1 and Part-2 has been made for the same purpose. The Board of Revenue previously has also examined the question of applicability of the CPC to the suits, appeals, revisions, references and other proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Revenue Court Manual Part-1 and Part-2 has been made for the same purpose. The Board of Revenue previously has also examined the question of applicability of the CPC to the suits, appeals, revisions, references and other proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. A Full Bench of the Board consisting of Shri M.U. Menoh, Chairman, Shri R.N. Hawa, Member and Shri R.N. Madhok, Member in a revision petition Chetan Das vs. Bhura reported in 1962 RRD page 206 had held that the CPC has specifically not been made applicable for the decisions of the cases under Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. But the general principles to control the procedure can very well be examined while deciding the proceedings under the Act as well. In another decision Madan Lal vs. Ranglal reported in 1975 RRD page 521, the Single Bench of the Board has held that the general principles of the CPC apply to cases under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 but provisions in the Act have to be followed to the exclusion of the CPC. Similarly, in 1973 RRD page 695 Jhuma Ram vs. Chand Ram, the Single Bench of the Board has held that though CPC is not specifically applicable to the proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 but the general principles can very well be examined and applied while deciding the proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. This case followed 1962 RRD page 206 (Full Bench). 6. On the important question of law regarding applicability of the CPC to the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, the Honble Member Shri A.K. Purohit has further pointed that he has come across the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Board comprising of Shri K.N. Bhargava, Member, Shri O.P. Jain, Member and Shri K.L. Mina, Member in U.I.T., Jodhpur vs. Ratan Lal reported in 1992 RRD page 99, wherein the question of applicability of provisions of Order 22 Rule 3, 4 and 9 of the CPC to the appeals arising under Section 75 and 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 was under consideration and two questions were referred to the Larger Bench, namely:- (1) "Whether the provisions of Order 22 Rule 3, 4 and 9 apply to appeals arising under Section 75 and 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956? (2) If the answer to (1) above is in the negative whether it is not essential to bring the LRs of the deceased parties on record within a reasonable time in order to regulate the proceedings in the appeal? The above questions were answered by the Larger Bench as under:- (1) "The provisions of Order 22 Rule 3, 4 and 9 do not apply to appeals arising under Section 75 and 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. (2) It is essential to bring the LRs of the deceased parties within a reasonable time in order to regulate the proceedings in appeal. It is the contention of the Honble Member that the two judgments of the Larger Bench, namely 1962 RRD page 206 and 1992 page 99 have laid down different preposition so far as the applicability of the provisions of CPC to the proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 are concerned. He has further pointed out that similar controversy has arisen regarding the applicability of CPC to the proceedings and suits, appeals, revisions, reviews, references and other proceedings filed under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Section 208 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 deals with application of CPC and the IVth Schedule (list No. 1 and 2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 also provide provisions of non-applicability and applicability with modification of the provisions of CPC while deciding appeals, revisions, reviews and references under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. In the opinion of the Honble Member, there is no uniformity in the judgments of the Honble Members of the Board on this point and there are divergent views of the two Larger Bench referred to above and also differences in judgments by the Members of the Board. He, therefore, felt that it is just and proper that this legal controversy should be settled for all the times. The present revision petitions have been kept pending still opinion of the Full Bench is obtained on this point. 7. We heard the arguments of the learned counsels in the case. Shri Purna Shankar Dashora, learned counsel for the petitioners in the revision petitions opened the arguments by raising a preliminary objection to question No.1 as framed by the Honble Member. 7. We heard the arguments of the learned counsels in the case. Shri Purna Shankar Dashora, learned counsel for the petitioners in the revision petitions opened the arguments by raising a preliminary objection to question No.1 as framed by the Honble Member. He pointed out that the revisions had been filed in the Single Bench under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and no matter relating to the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was involved in the revisions. As per the provisions contained in Section 11 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, a reference can only be made by a Member on an issue arising before him in the case. Reference cannot be made in respect of any issue which has not been raised before the Honble Member. In this regard, he cited the following rulings, 1973 RRD page 73 (DB), 1974 RRD page 132 (FB), 1978 RRD page 132 (LB), 1986 RRD page 731 (LB), 1984 RRD page 368 (SB), 1984 RRD page 92 (SB), 1984 RRD page 324 (LB), 1976 RRD page 376 (LB); 1987 RRD page 584 (LB), where it has clearly been held that a reference is not justified where the question of law does not arise from the case under reference. Hence the learned counsel argued that question No.1 regarding the applicability of the CPC to the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was not maintainable as the present revisions had been filed only under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. 8. Arguing on merits on question number two raised by the Honble Member, the learned counsel pointed out that CPC is a general law which governs the procedure of the Courts of civil judicature. The Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 is also mainly a procedural Act which lays down the procedure to be followed by the Revenue Courts. As per Section 4 of the CPC nothing in the code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any special or local law now in force/Thus, CPC would not be applicable where specific procedure has been laid down in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. However, in matters of procedure where Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 is silent, the provisions of the CPC would prevail in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the CPC. However, in matters of procedure where Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 is silent, the provisions of the CPC would prevail in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the CPC. The concerned section provides that in those matters of procedure in which any special enactment is silent, the provisions of the CPC would apply unless the State Government by notification in the official gazette declares that any of these provisions shall not apply to those Courts. No such notification has been issued by the State Government declaring the non-applicability of the provisions of the CPC to the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. As such the CPC would be applicable where there is no specific provision in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. In this regard, the learned counsel cited the following rulings 1973 RRD page 736, 1973 RRD 693, 1974 RRD page 132, 1978 RRD page 132, 1986 RRD page 731, 1984 RRD page 368, 1984 RRD page 92, 1984 RRD page 324, 1976 RRD page 376, 1987 RRD page 584, 1959 RRD page 4, 1962 RRD page 206, 1963 RRD page 55, 1969 RRD page 217, 1972 RRD page 244, 1973 RRD page 693 and 1981 RRD page 429. 9. The learned counsel further pointed out that the provisions of Section 5 of the CPC are applicable to all specific Civil Acts and laws and not merely to the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. Several rulings of the Supreme Court and the High Court on different Acts have clearly defined the principle that where a specific Act is silent, the provisions of the CPC would prevail in accordance with Section 5 of the CPC. In this regard, the learned counsel cited the following rulings, AIR 1986 SC page 1957, AIR 1981 Delhi page 217, AIR 2004 SC page 5152, AIR 1954 Cal. page 347 and AIR 2000 A.P. page 356. He contended that the above principle would also apply to the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. 10. The learned counsel also argued that there is no contradiction in the judgment of the Full Bench reported in 1962 RRD 206 and the judgment of the Larger Bench in 1992 RRD page 99. Both the judgments have held that the general procedure laid down in the CPC would apply in the proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The learned counsel also argued that there is no contradiction in the judgment of the Full Bench reported in 1962 RRD 206 and the judgment of the Larger Bench in 1992 RRD page 99. Both the judgments have held that the general procedure laid down in the CPC would apply in the proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. In the Larger Bench judgment of 1992, in reply to the first question, it has merely been held that Order 22 Rule 3, 4 and 9 do not apply to appeals arising under Section 75 and 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. However, in the same judgment in reply to question number two, it has been held that it is essential to bring the L.Rs. of the deceased parties within a reasonable time in order to regulate the proceedings in appeal. Thus, the Larger Bench has accepted the general principle as laid down in the Full Bench judgment in 1962 RRD page 206. 11. The learned counsel further pointed out that Chapter-IV of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 deals with the procedure to be followed by the Revenue Courts and officers. In the above chapter, reference has been made to the provisions of the CPC. Section 57 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 has directly adopted the procedure of the CPC. From the above fact, it is clear that the provisions of the CPC have not been excluded under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 even though no specific provision has been made making the CPC applicable to the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The learned counsel summed up his arguments with the contention that as per Section 4 of the CPC, the Code would not be applicable where specific provisions have been provided in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. However, as per the provisions of Section 5 of the CPC, the Code would be applicable where the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 is silent with regard to matter of procedure. 12. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners in the revision Shri Kharag Singh reiterated and supported the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners on both the questions. He further stated that the issue regarding applicability of the CPC has already been decided in the judgment of 1962 and the matter cannot be reopened now. 12. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners in the revision Shri Kharag Singh reiterated and supported the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners on both the questions. He further stated that the issue regarding applicability of the CPC has already been decided in the judgment of 1962 and the matter cannot be reopened now. In this regard, he cited the following ruling, AIR 1957 Allahabad page 495. He further contended that the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 is a procedural Act for Revenue Courts and the CPC is a general Act laying down the procedure to be followed in Civil Courts. The provisions of the CPC are generally applicable to the proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 so far as they are applied in the interest of justice. However, provisions of the CPC cannot be strictly applied to proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 for such proceedings are governed by the procedure as laid down in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. In this regard, he cited the following rulings 1992 RRD page 99. 13. The learned Government Advocate Shri J.P. Mathur, while agreeing in principle to the arguments made by the earlier counsels, pointed out that the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 is a comprehensive Act covering all matters relating to revenue administration. The Act contains both administrative and judicial provisions. The distinction between the judicial and non-judicial matters has been referred to in Section 23 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. It was the contention of the learned Govt. Advocate that the CPC is applicable only to the judicial matters where there is no specific provision laid down in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. Provisions of the CPC would not apply to the non-judicial matters included in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. As such, CPC is not applicable to the rules made under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. 14. Shri Bhoop Singh Vishnoi, Amicus Curie however differed with the opinion of the above learned counsels and has submitted that since the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 has laid down its own procedure for disposal of the revenue cases, the provisions of the CPC would not be applicable in the proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. He however did not submit any ruling to support his above contention. 15. He however did not submit any ruling to support his above contention. 15. We have examined the arguments made by the learned counsels and have studied the rulings cited by them. We have also gone through the relevant Sections of the CPC and the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. So far as question number 1 regarding the applicability of the CPC to the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 is concerned, the relevant section of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 under which a reference can be made i.e. Section 11 reads as follows:- "Power to refer to a Bench—The Chairman or any other member of the Board sitting singly for the disposal of any case or proceeding may, if he thinks fit, for reasons to be recorded in writing, refer any question of law or custom having the force of law or of the construction of any document arising before him in such case or proceeding, for the opinion of a Bench, and the case or proceeding shall be disposed of in accordance with such opinion." The language used in Section 11 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 is very clear and unambiguous. Two requirements have been laid down in the above provision for making a reference. One, a reference can only be made on a question of law arising before a Member in a case before him. Secondly, the reference made should be such as it would enable the Bench to dispose off the matter in accordance with the opinion given. Thus, under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, a reference can only be made on a legal point which affects the final disposal of the case under consideration. A reference cannot be made on a hypothetical question of law. In the present case, the revision before the Single Bench were filed under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and no issue related to the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was involved. As such, the question number one raised by the learned Member regarding the applicability of the CPC to the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 is a purely academic question as it has not arisen from the concerned revisions which were pending before him. 16. The Board has been taking a consistent view that a reference can only be made with regard to a matter arising before the Honble Member. 16. The Board has been taking a consistent view that a reference can only be made with regard to a matter arising before the Honble Member. References on academic and hypothetical questions cannot be entertained. In 1973 RRD page 736, it has been held that "The Bench to which the point has been referred under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 for its opinion can give such opinion only on a question of law or custom having the force of law or of the consideration of any document arising before the Honble Member who seeks reference in the case or proceeding which he is called upon to decide. If the question does not arise out of that case, a reference under Section 11 would not be competent." In 1974 RRD page 132, it has been held that "the reference is not, therefore, competent because the question whether a special appeal lies against a judgment (not merely an order) does not arise out of the proceedings before the Bench because the impugned order is not a judgment within the meaning of Section 10 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The reference is, therefore, incompetent and is returned with the above remarks." In 1978 RRD page 132, it has been held "In view of the conclusion reached by us we feel that the question No.1 has been framed by the learned Single Member on the wrong premise that the applicants were treated as Gair Khatedar tenants by the High Court. The said question cannot be said to have arisen out of the facts of these cases and need not be answered." In 1986 RRD Page 731, it has been held that "it is settled law that when the decision of the revision does not depend upon the point on which reference has been made, the question referred to the Larger Bench cannot be said to arise from the case before the learned Single Bench within the meaning of Section 11 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The LB in such circumstances do not answer hypothetical questions of law. Consequently, the reference for opinion of the LB of the above two questions in this revision is misconceived and they do not call for answer. We refuse to answer hypothetical questions and return the revision file to the S.B. for disposal in accordance with law." 17. The LB in such circumstances do not answer hypothetical questions of law. Consequently, the reference for opinion of the LB of the above two questions in this revision is misconceived and they do not call for answer. We refuse to answer hypothetical questions and return the revision file to the S.B. for disposal in accordance with law." 17. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 11 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and the rulings of the Board cited above, we are in agreement with the arguments submitted by the learned counsel Shri Dashora that since the question No.1 has not arisen from the revisions pending before the Bench, the question raised by the Honble Member is an academic and hypothetical one and therefore cannot be maintained. As such, no answer is required to be given to question No.1. 18. As regards the second question regarding the applicability of the CPC to the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, the matter needs to be examined in the light of the provisions of law and the rulings given in this regard by the various Courts. CPC is a general law governing the procedure of the Civil Courts. Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, on the other hand, is a specific law which lays down the procedure to be followed by the Revenue Courts. Section 4 of the CPC reads as follows:- "4. Savings.-(1) In the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any special or local law now in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by or under any other law for the time being in force. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the proposition contained in sub-section (1), nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any remedy which a landholder or landlord may have under any law for the time being in force for the recovery of rent of agricultural Iand from the produce of such land." 19. From a bare reading of the Section, it is seen that the CPC itself lays down that the Code will not limit or otherwise affect any special or local law. Proviso 2 to Section 4 specifically refers to the revenue laws. From a bare reading of the Section, it is seen that the CPC itself lays down that the Code will not limit or otherwise affect any special or local law. Proviso 2 to Section 4 specifically refers to the revenue laws. It is thus very clear that the provisions of the CPC are not applicable to the specific provision laid down under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. 20. The main question to be determined therefore is whether the provisions of the CPC are applicable in those areas of procedure where the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 is silent. Section 5 of the CPC covers this contingency and reads as follows:- "5. Application of the Code to Revenue Courts-(1) Where any Revenue Courts are governed by the provisions of this Code in those matters of procedure upon which any special enactment applicable to them is silent, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that any portions of those provisions which are not expressly made applicable by this Code shall not apply to those Courts, or shall only apply to them with such modification as the State Government may prescribe. (2) "Revenue Court" in sub-section (1) means a Court having jurisdiction under any local law to entertain suits or other proceedings relating to the rent, revenue or profits of land used for agricultural purposes, but does not include a Civil Court having original jurisdiction under this Court to try such suits or proceedings as being suits or proceedings of a civil nature." To properly appreciate the provisions of the above noted section, we can divide the section into three parts :- (i) The first three lines of Section 5 of the CPC clearly lay down that Revenue Courts are governed by the provisions of this Act in those matters of procedure, upon which the special enactment applicable to them is silent. (ii) The State Government can, by notification in the official gazette, declare that any portion of the provisions of the CPC shall not apply to the Revenue Courts. (iii) The State Government can also, by a notification, declare that the CPC would be applicable to the revenue Courts with such modifications as the State Government may prescribe. 21. (ii) The State Government can, by notification in the official gazette, declare that any portion of the provisions of the CPC shall not apply to the Revenue Courts. (iii) The State Government can also, by a notification, declare that the CPC would be applicable to the revenue Courts with such modifications as the State Government may prescribe. 21. From the above analysis of Section 5 of the CPC, it is clear that the provisions of the CPC are applicable on those matters of procedure where the special enactment is silent unless the State Government issue a notification declaring the specific provisions of the CPC to be non-applicable to the Revenue Courts. The State Government has issued no such notification in the context of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. In the absence of such notification, there can be no doubt that the provisions of the CPC will be applicable on matters of procedure where the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 is silent. 22. We would further like to state that every right has a remedy and to obtain the remedy a laid down procedure has to be followed to avoid any form of discrimination and high handedness. The Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 provides for the grant of various remedies like injunction etc. but there are no provisions in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 for effective execution of these remedies. The law does not envisage provisions where a remedy is granted without a provision for executing the remedy. Obviously, since the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 is silent on the point, the provisions of the CPC would apply for enforcing the remedies under the Act. We are supported in the above view of the judgment delivered in Ravi Jeevanadam vs. Sri Laksmi Narasimhavari Devasthanam, Antervedi published in AIR 2000 Andhra Pradesh Page 356 in which the Honble Andhra Pradesh High Court in page 7 has held as under:- "From a bare perusal of Section 5 it becomes clear that where there is a special enactment and with regard to certain matters if the enactment is silent the CPC will apply. In case the State Government wants that certain provisions of the CPC should not apply with respect to those enactments then the State Government has the power to issue a notification. In case the State Government wants that certain provisions of the CPC should not apply with respect to those enactments then the State Government has the power to issue a notification. In the absence of such a notification the CPC shall apply to those matters on which the special enactment is silent. Sub Section (2) of Section 5 of the CPC defines the Revenue Courts and it is stated that Revenue Court means a Court having jurisdiction under any local law to entertain suit or proceedings relating to rent, revenue or profits of land used for agricultural purpose. Therefore, in my view the Special Officers are Revenue Courts within the meaning of Section 5 of the CPC. Therefore, the Special Officer and the learned District Judge were correct in entertaining the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the CPC. 23. The above view of the Honble Andhra Pradesh High Court is supported by various rulings of the Board as well. In 1959 RRD page 4, a Full Bench has held the view that "It is clear, therefore, that when anything in the CPC is in conflict with anything in the special form of procedure prescribed by any law then and then alone, the Code will not prevail so as to over ride such inconsistent provisions. If the special procedure is silent on a point, it cannot be held that the provisions of the Code are inconsistent with the provisions of the special law and hence the Code will apply." The Full Bench further states "In the absence of any specific provision to the contrary in any special or local law, the ordinary rules of procedure would apply vide Section 4, Civil Procedure Code". In the Full Bench judgment published in 1962 RRD page 206, it has been held "The Code of Civil Procedure has not specifically been made applicable for the decision of the cases under the Act. In the Full Bench judgment published in 1962 RRD page 206, it has been held "The Code of Civil Procedure has not specifically been made applicable for the decision of the cases under the Act. But the general principles to control the procedure can be very well examined while deciding the proceedings under the Act as well." In 1969 RRD page 217, it has been held "A Revenue Court would come under the genesis of a Civil Court, though it will be a special form of Civil Courts dealing with revenue matters only, and whenever the laws which the Revenue Courts were dealing, have not specifically laid down any procedure, the procedure applicable in the Civil Courts would apply." In 1972 RRD page 244, a Single Bench has held "Though the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to the proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act yet on principles of equity, good conscience and justice the underlying principles of the CPC are followed." In 1981 RRD page 429, a Larger Bench of five Honble Members has held "Section 5(1) of the CPC also provides that where any Revenue Courts are governed by the provisions of this Code in those matters of procedure upon which any special enactment may be notification in the official gazette declare that any portions of those provisions which are not applied to those Courts or shall only apply to them with such modifications as the State Government may prescribe. This also indicates that the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to Revenue Court subject to the limitations contained therein." 24. It will thus be seen that the provisions of the CPC clearly provide for the applicability of the CPC on matters where the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 is silent. The Board and the various Courts have also consistently held the above view in the few rulings cited above as well as the other rulings quoted by the learned counsels. 25. The Board and the various Courts have also consistently held the above view in the few rulings cited above as well as the other rulings quoted by the learned counsels. 25. The Honble Member in the reference made by him has referred to the contradiction between the judgment Chetan Das vs. Bhura reported in 1962 RRD page 206 and the judgment in U.I.T., Jodhpur vs. Ratan Lal reported in 1992 RRD page 99 wherein it has been held that the provisions of Order 22 Rule 3, 4 and 9 of the CPC would not apply to appeals arising under Section 75 and 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. It is the opinion of the Honble Member that the two judgments of the Larger Bench in 1962 RRD page 206 and 1992 RRD page 99 have laid down different prepositions so far as the applicability of provisions of CPC to the proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 are concerned. We have examined the judgment of 1962 RRD page 206 and 1992 RRD page 99 in details and we do not find any contradiction in the general principles enunciated in both the above judgments. In the judgment of 1962 RRD page 206, it has been held that though the provisions of CPC are not applicable to the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 but the general principles to control the procedure can well be examined while deciding the proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The judgment of 1992 RRD page 99 has not contradicted the above guideline. A detailed reading of the judgment would show that the entire discussion in the concerned judgment relates to the non-applicability of Order 22, Rule 3, 4 and 9 of the CPC to revisions in general and to revisions in particular under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The apparent contradiction appears to have arisen on account of the word "appeal" being used in place of "revision" in the answer given by the concerned Bench. However, in the answer to question No.2, the concerned Bench has very clearly held the applicability of the general provisions of the CPC where it has maintained that it is essential to bring the legal representatives of the deceased parties within a reasonable time in order to regulate the proceedings in appeal 26. However, in the answer to question No.2, the concerned Bench has very clearly held the applicability of the general provisions of the CPC where it has maintained that it is essential to bring the legal representatives of the deceased parties within a reasonable time in order to regulate the proceedings in appeal 26. It may further be pointed out that both in the judgment of the Full Bench published in 1962 RRD page 206 and in the Larger Bench judgment published in 1992 RRD page 99, the question of applicability of CPC was decided with reference to the particular facts of the cases before them which were entirely different. Implications of the provisions of Section 4 and 5 of the CPC were neither raised before them nor were they considered in the concerned judgments. 27. In the course of the arguments in the matter, no rulings have been cited which may contradict the general stand taken by the Board that where the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 was silent, the provisions of the CPC would apply. As already discussed above in our opinion, there is no apparent contradiction in the rulings of 1962 RRD page 206 and 1992 RRD page 99. Looking into the provisions contained in the CPC and the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, we have no hesitation in accepting the arguments of the learned counsels that provisions of CPC would be applicable to the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 where no specific provisions are provided under the Act. 28. Having said that it is essential to elaborate that the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 is a comprehensive Act which lays down the procedure to be followed by the Revenue administration in the State. 29. The learned Govt. Advocate has rightly drawn our attention to Section 23 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 where a clear distinction has been made between non-judicial matters connected with the revenue in the State and the judicial matters. Obviously, the provisions of the CPC would not be applicable to those provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 or rules made thereunder which are purely administrative in nature. Provisions of the CPC would only apply to judicial proceedings arising out of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 where no specific provision has been provided in the Act. We are also in agreement with the learned Govt. Provisions of the CPC would only apply to judicial proceedings arising out of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 where no specific provision has been provided in the Act. We are also in agreement with the learned Govt. Advocate that the provisions of the CPC would not apply to the implementation of the rules framed under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 since implementation of rules is an administrative function. However, the provisions of CPC would be attracted in case of any judicial proceedings which may arise out of the implementation of the said rules. 30. Based on the analysis made above, answers to the questions raised by the Honble Member given as follows:- (1) Needs no answer. (2) Although the question has been framed in one sentence, for purposes of clarity, we feel that answer should be given in three parts:- (a) Provisions of the CPC are not applicable to the non-judicial matters dealt with in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and Rules made thereunder. (b) The provisions of the CPC with its amendments would not be applicable to the appeals, revisions, references, reviews and proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and rules thereunder where specific provisions have been provided under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. (c) The provisions of the CPC with its amendments would be applicable to the appeals, revisions, references, reviews and proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and Rules made thereunder in regard to such matters where there is no special enactment in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. 31. Before parting with the judgment, we would like to acknowledge with appreciation the assistance provided by the learned counsels who have argued the matter before the Full Bench. We would like to make a special mention of the presentation made by learned counsel Shri Purna Shankar Dashora who led the arguments in this case. The lucid and comprehensive manner in which he covered the subject along with the extensive rulings cited by him provided great assistance to the Bench in reaching the conclusions drawn by them. 32. The above answers to the questions referred to the Full Bench may be sent to the learned Single Bench Member for disposal of the pending revisions. Pronounced in open Court.